• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

I didn't think Pete's speech was as great as people are saying it was. It was a good speech, but we've heard much of it before.

I think Townie is way off on a few points. First of all, Pete's Douglass plan for tackling institutional racism has been out for awhile. He has a bunch of plans available on his website. The whole "Pete doesn't have plans" meme was dumb anyway because obviously US senators and their staffs are going to have more fleshed out plans ready to go within the first few months of a campaign. It's really dumb now. Second, the speech obviously played well with high information voters because it played very well in the room of people who showed up to volunteer in Iowa. Third, the basic story on Pete with minority voters is (1) they don't know about him, (2) when they find out about him they like him, (3) but they're worried that other people will have a problem with a gay candidate. All of those bode well for Pete if he performs well in Iowa which the latest Quinnipiac polling suggests he has a good shot at doing. Nobody else besides Biden and Sanders is doing well with black voters and that's because they've run before. Again, black voters tend to stick with the safest option before the primaries. Biden and Sanders should be concerned because they didn't do that well with black voters in their previous runs. The same people counting out Pete with black voters are the same people who are adamant that a white nominee has to have Kamala, Castro, or Booker as a VP even though they aren't doing great with black voters either.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/11/4/20926701/black-voters-democratic-primary-2020
In other words, there isn’t a single black vote. There are many. A seemingly monolithic black electorate often coalesces onlyafter individual black voters make decisions based on a nuanced set of political calculations.
“Black voters today are behaving in a very smart and strategic way that they’ve always behaved in, but no one ever really lets us be smart,” says Keneshia Grant, an assistant professor of political science at Howard University. “Black voters get viewed as sheep who are being told where to go, and I think that’s wrong and the data shows that this is wrong.”
Black voters, much like other voters in the electorate, have varying ideologies. Some are more conservative than others. Some are far more progressive. And there other splits as well, along lines of age, gender, income, and geography. This has always been the case, and yet, it is rarely discussed in mainstream political conversations about courting black voters.
Click to expand...

Take, for example, the aforementioned 2008 Democratic presidential primary. While then-Sen. Barack Obama’s success over Hillary Clinton is often remembered — as is the fact that black voters began to overwhelmingly support him after the Iowa Caucus — what often isn’t as readily acknowledged is that for months before this, there had been a noticeable split in the black voters backing him and the black voters who weren’t. Early in the contest, Obama was supported mainly by younger black voters, as older voters and many black politicians backed Clinton, pointing to her established history in the black community, her work during her husband’s presidential administration, and for some, their belief that Obama wasn’t well-known enough to be electable.
But when a majority of this group flipped to Obama in 2008, they helped him advance further, propelling him to a win in South Carolina weeks later. Obama also won every primary held in a state where blacks were more than 20 percent of the population, and in some states, he managed to win over as much as 90 percent of black voters.
That primary offers a lot of lessons. For one, it shows that the margin of victory for a candidate among black voters matters almost as much as the victory itself, meaning that it’s in a candidate’s best interest to push their support among black voters as high as it can possibly go. The 2008 primary also provides one example of how black voting power has worked in recent elections: showing how a presumed frontrunner who was banking on black support (Clinton), and actually did have a lot of support from specific groups of black voters and the black political class, saw much of her lead evaporate after a different candidate proved they could also get votes from different portions of the electorate.
Click to expand...


The political elitism out there seems to assume everybody has been following this primary. In my circle of suburban moms and dads, people are vaguely aware of what's going on but they've mainly checked out of the news for their mental health and to rest up for 2020. There's a strong sense of "let me know who actually has a chance to win."
 
Last edited:
An important part of being an effective president probably still involves being persuasive/appealing. To a lot of people.
 
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Bernie’s speech is better to the 5-10% of voters who are educated on the issues, can understand policy nuances, and actually give a shit at the present moment. Pete’s speech is better to the 90-95% of voters who are more swayed by how it feels. Emotion is the most powerful driver of the human condition. Bernie has always struggled to connect on that emotional level, it’s just not his forte. He’s not Obama. That doesn’t make him a worse politician, it just makes him different. Pete is going for the Obama approach and it’s working in Iowa.
Click to expand...

Support for any of this? Seems pretty close to #feelings.
 
Not going to bother giving WSJ clicks, but when olds complain about "overuse of healthcare" it's complaining about poor and minority people getting healthcare.

How on earth is people using healthcare an "unintended consequence?" Pretty sure that's the damn purpose.
 
if the phrase is to mean "Dr's will prescribe all kinds of unnecessary tests" then yeah i bet that will happen but that already happens.

why can't we deal with accessibility along with wasteful spending
 
Why would doctors be more likely to do unnecessary tests if they aren't getting paid more to do them? The current billing and insurance system incentivizes unnecessary tests paid for by OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
 
Im going to assume the WSJ article is not considering all the ways we pay for underuse like people going to the ER or to jail for addiction/mental health issues.
 
avalon said:
Click to expand...

Man, if I didn't know better, I'd say this healthcare thing is complicated.

Seriously though, at least it's a debate worth having. Of course there could be some unintended consequences. There always will be, and whether or not you think it's worth the risk is part of where you stand.

At least that's an intelligent discussion as opposed to what's going on in the white house and around the country currently.
 
PhDeac said:
Not going to bother giving WSJ clicks, but when olds complain about "overuse of healthcare" it's complaining about poor and minority people getting healthcare.

How on earth is people using healthcare an "unintended consequence?" Pretty sure that's the damn purpose.
Click to expand...

huh? Overutilization is a known and recognized issue that contributes to higher health care costs.
 
MHBDemon said:
Support for any of this? Seems pretty close to #feelings.
Click to expand...

Wtf do you mean “support” as if there are data points for Bernie being a known grump. Use some basic observational skills.
 
WakeandBake said:
huh? Overutilization is a known and recognized issue that contributes to higher health care costs.
Click to expand...

This is largely a myth. Our overall utilization rates are similar or lower than most of our peer countries. There is some maldistribution in our system (that is, wealthy people use a bit too much health care, while poor people not enough), but when it comes to health care spending in our country, overutilization is basically a non issue. The primary problem is the prices.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
centrist says pete is better
progressive says bernard is better

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

This explains it all
 
PhDeac said:
I didn't think Pete's speech was as great as people are saying it was. It was a good speech, but we've heard much of it before.

I think Townie is way off on a few points.

Which ones? If it's just about the Pete and nonwhite voters, I was only really referencing his dumb comments about why he thought he was doing poorly in South Carolina.

The political elitism out there seems to assume everybody has been following this primary. In my circle of suburban moms and dads, people are vaguely aware of what's going on but they've mainly checked out of the news for their mental health and to rest up for 2020. There's a strong sense of "let me know who actually has a chance to win."

I have this situation at home. My wife made her mind up about Bernie in 2016 and won't really be moved to hear anything about him (generally seems to be the case on these boards too), and she likes Warren but otherwise hasn't watched a single debate, basically just reads the Atlantic and NY Mag and that's about it for her on politics. I recognize that's a fairly common position to take. I don't really lump all the people on here talking politics every day into that group though, so I don't treat you all that way. That's why when I say the speech lacks substance, I don't understand why that's a positive for the members of this board, who are less likely to be swayed by style than substance. And again, I guess it's because you all fancy yourselves electoral crystal ball knowers?
Click to expand...

Anyway based on the responses I've seen, it does seem to come down to centrists or people who fancy themselves pragmatists liking the Pete stuff and progressives and leftists less so. So when it comes down to it, I don't understand what's so disagreeable about anything I've said. I disagree with Pete's centrist, means-tested approach to policy because I think it helps fewer people and is just as likely to run into opposition as a further left approach.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Bernie’s speech is better to the 5-10% of voters who are educated on the issues, can understand policy nuances, and actually give a shit at the present moment. Pete’s speech is better to the 90-95% of voters who are more swayed by how it feels. Emotion is the most powerful driver of the human condition. Bernie has always struggled to connect on that emotional level, it’s just not his forte. He’s not Obama. That doesn’t make him a worse politician, it just makes him different. Pete is going for the Obama approach and it’s working in Iowa.
Click to expand...

MHBDemon said:
Support for any of this? Seems pretty close to #feelings.
Click to expand...

AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Wtf do you mean “support” as if there are data points for Bernie being a known grump. Use some basic observational skills.
Click to expand...

I am not speaking for MHB here, but the data suggests that Pete's audience is retired people and academics or professional class people, where Bernie's audience is generally closer to working/service industry people. That doesn't jive with your wonk vs emotion characterization for the nature of these speeches.
 
I would be curious if those people that overuse the system early would be people that have never had insurance or were underinsured. Would that change once they get healthy? Would their children grow up with solid healthcare and not overuse later? My guess is probably.
 
TownieDeac said:
I am not speaking for MHB here, but the data suggests that Pete's audience is retired people and academics or professional class people, where Bernie's audience is generally closer to working/service industry people. That doesn't jive with your wonk vs emotion characterization for the nature of these speeches.
Click to expand...

so the people who would be more affected by appeals to emotion like rabble rousers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top